(01-22-2012 10:19 AM)Paul M Wrote:  An adulterer, Newt. A racist, Paul.

Being mistaken that I meant Obama is understandable.

I knew exactly what you meant. I was just trying to get you back on topic nicely. We both know the good doctor is not going to be POTUS.

(01-22-2012 02:22 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Ill call it now.
Americans are just dumb and unprincipled enough to allow a disgraced former speaker of the HOR and admitted adulterer to be their leader. This election will really be between the "evil of two lessers".

Will not happen. Obama has this election against any of he current gop candidates.

If the GOP wants a winner they should nominate Obama at the convention.

(01-22-2012 09:23 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Newt had 84 ethics charges filed against him

And 83 of those "charges" were dropped. Politics is a rough business. Filing bogus "ethics charges" against people who threaten their power is SOP.

Quote:was fined $300K...

A negotiated truce in the war.

Quote:was the first speaker in US history to be censured by the House

Reprimanded, not censured. HUGE difference.

Quote:...and was forced to resign.

Not for anything to do with the "ethics charges" against him. The GOP lost a handful (4-5) of seats in the 1998 congressional elections, and he lost the support of the caucus as a result.

The faux outrage from the neo-cons about Paul's newsletters is hilarious.

I'd rather vote for a guy who screwed one person rather than 330,000,000. When a saint is nominated, then I'll vote for him. Until then......

And we can add to this the allegation he asked his wife for an open marriage after cheating on her for 6 years soon after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and her doctor advised the both of them that she should not be under any stress, and the next day he gives a speech about family and values.... Of course GOPers don't care about these allegations because their first instinct is "Grrliberalmedia!" but independents may not be so forgiving.

I've got a real problem with Newt's shenanigans. On the other hand, seems the guy we have now has pretty tame personal habits, and look where that has gotten us.

That whole cartoon is pretty funny, but the funniest part is the line about "our centrist, technocratic President."

Wait. I thought Clinton was impeached for perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice.

(01-22-2012 10:54 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-22-2012 09:23 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Newt had 84 ethics charges filed against him

And 83 of those "charges" were dropped. Politics is a rough business. Filing bogus "ethics charges" against people who threaten their power is SOP.

Quote:was fined $300K...

A negotiated truce in the war.

Quote:was the first speaker in US history to be censured by the House

Reprimanded, not censured. HUGE difference.

Quote:...and was forced to resign.

Not for anything to do with the "ethics charges" against him. The GOP lost a handful (4-5) of seats in the 1998 congressional elections, and he lost the support of the caucus as a result.

OK...That is an acceptable polish of a turd.

Everyone is going to vote for a flawed man.

(01-22-2012 10:54 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-22-2012 09:23 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Newt had 84 ethics charges filed against him

And 83 of those "charges" were dropped. Politics is a rough business. Filing bogus "ethics charges" against people who threaten their power is SOP.

Quote:was fined $300K...

A negotiated truce in the war.

Quote:was the first speaker in US history to be censured by the House

Reprimanded, not censured. HUGE difference.

Quote:...and was forced to resign.

Not for anything to do with the "ethics charges" against him. The GOP lost a handful (4-5) of seats in the 1998 congressional elections, and he lost the support of the caucus as a result.

Not to mention that Newt was the primary force behind he ouster of Jim Wright....he had some serious enemies by that time.

No way am I voting for Newt. No way. Never.

Yes the official charge against Clinton was perjury, but it's not like Newt was only criticizing Clinton for lying to a federal judge (How will you explain it to your kids? He lied to all of us!).

I wouldn't exactly call Obama centrist, but he's not far left of center. I don't think he's a true progressive or social democrat though, considering he caved on the Bush tax cuts, caved on the Patriot Act, caved on the wars overseas, caved on Gitmo, is offering entitlement cuts to Medicare and SS, doesn't support gay marriage, etc. Technocrat is a good descriptor though. Of course conservatives don't see this because he's their bogeyman.

(01-22-2012 03:42 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Technocrat is a good descriptor though. Of course conservatives don't see this because he's their bogeyman.

If you consider him appointing Jeff Immelt to his advisory council, which is tasked with (among other things) closing tax loopholes and stopping the outsourcing of jobs, while GE is one of the worst offenders of both of those things, or him filling his cabinet with Goldmanites while he rails against Wall Street and corporate greed as "technocratic," I guess it fits.

(01-22-2012 09:23 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-22-2012 07:59 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-22-2012 02:22 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Ill call it now.
Americans are just dumb and unprincipled enough to allow a disgraced former speaker of the HOR and admitted adulterer to be their leader. This election will really be the between the "evil of two lessers".

I agree that Newt is an "admitted adulterer", and that is "disgraceful" all by itself. But since you said Gingrich is disgraced "and" an adulterer, I am wondering if you think he is disgraced in some other way, too. If so, how?

*******

I would much rather live in a country where adulterers were considered politically untouchable in terms of high public office. America used to be such a country itself, and it is "disgraceful" to me that it no longer is. But we passed that exit about 20 years ago with Bill Clinton, and a majority of Americans have seemed to accept that. If Newt Gingrich is able to parlay that acceptance to his own political advantage, it will not signify anything "dumb" or "unprincipled" about the American people that they haven't signified many time before already.

Newt had 84 ethics charges filed against him, was fined $300K...was the first speaker in US history to be censured by the House...and was forced to resign. This is the guy we now choose to lead? Damn.

Honestly...His adultery bothers me less than his resume.

Let's be clear Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against Gingrich during his term as speaker, all by Democrats. Eighty-three of the charges were later dropped. Those charges were payback for going after Clinton.

After extensive investigation and negotiation by the House Ethics Committee, Gingrich was reprimanded and penalized $300,000 by a 395–28 House vote.

The one charge not dropped was a charge of claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes. Then in 1999, the IRS cleared the organizations connected with the "Renewing American Civilization" courses under investigation for possible tax violations.

Newt was not lining his pockets or abusing his position. He claimed tax exempt stats on something he should not have but later the IRS clear the organization.

(01-22-2012 01:04 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  OK...That is an acceptable polish of a turd.

Better than "Id did write that racist stuff" ... "I did not write it" ... "I did not read stuff put out in my name"

(01-22-2012 03:42 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I wouldn't exactly call Obama centrist, but he's not far left of center.

I find it mind-boggling that an intelligent person could make that statement.

Quote:I don't think he's a true progressive or social democrat though, considering he caved on the Bush tax cuts, caved on the Patriot Act, caved on the wars overseas, caved on Gitmo, is offering entitlement cuts to Medicare and SS, doesn't support gay marriage, etc.

All of the things he "caved" on were because he didn't have the votes to do anything else. And in most cases, including Obamacare and the "stimulus," it was the more centrist members of his own party, not the republicans, that he has "caved" in to.

Obamacare does not include a public option. But that's not because Obama didn't want one, or didn't pull every string he could to try to get one. It's because he couldn't find 218 members of the house of representatives who were willing to vote for one. So that says nothing about Obama but much about the blue dogs. Same thing on other issues.

He has pushed the needle as far left as he could get away with at every step. Disagree? Fine, give me an instance where he had an opportunity to push it further to the left and didn't. And none of the above, whether listed by you or me, constitute what I'm talking about, because in none of those cases was a further left solution realistically available to him.

I don't know whether always pushing the needle as far left as possible makes him a socialist or communist, or just someone very close to there. The needle hasn't moved far enough yet for there to be any basis for determining which side of the "socialist/communist" versus "far left but non-socialist/non-communist" line he belongs on. But the need.le has clearly moved far enough left on several issues, and Obama has made it clear enough that it would have moved further left had he had his way, that the idea that he is anywhere near the center just fails.

His whole history says that he is at best very far left of center, at worst socialist/communist. His parents, his grandparents, and every individual that we know of who has ever been a significant role model were all socialists. His books read like they were written by Karl Marx--which if one of them was written by Bill Ayers, as is widely rumored, is essentially the same thing. His involvement with Ayers and Wright, at whatever level (and available facts suggest that neither relationship was as casual as the official stories accepted by the media would indicate) indicate at least some attraction to socialist/Marxist ideas. His voting records, in both Springfield and Washington, were at the extreme left end of the scale. There is a very consistent pattern there. If the only evidence going the other way is the compromises he's been forced to make with the centrists in his own party to get legislation passed, then that's pretty uncompelling. If there is other evidence, what is it?

(01-22-2012 04:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-22-2012 03:42 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I wouldn't exactly call Obama centrist, but he's not far left of center.

I find it mind-boggling that an intelligent person could make that statement.

Look at the bigger picture, Obama is so far left he's rounded the corner and is heading toward right. So that kinda sorta makes him not far left of center, kinda sorta.

(01-22-2012 04:01 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-22-2012 01:04 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  OK...That is an acceptable polish of a turd.

Better than "Id did write that racist stuff" ... "I did not write it" ... "I did not read stuff put out in my name"

Ok..Whatever makes one feel warm an fuzzy about Newt is fine with me. His record in regard to his character is not open for much interpretation. It speaks volumes to anyone that cares about that stuff and chooses to apply character as criteria for choosing a leader. Some folks simply don't care. That also is fine with me. I happen to think it is very important.

You choose to call Ron a liar. That is your prerogative.